Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

BENSON: CU's tenure program rigorous, thorough

By Bruce D. Benson, Special to the Rocky

Published December 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

The popular perception of tenure is that faculty at colleges and universities receive it when they are hired and keep it unconditionally until they retire or die.

This perception is not based in reality. At the University of Colorado, earning tenure is typically a seven-year process in which faculty members are evaluated on several criteria: teaching; university, professional and community service; clinical work (in relevant disciplines); and research, scholarship or creative work. Keeping it requires professors to demonstrate effective performance through an ongoing, stringent review process.

We set the bar high for achieving tenure and have great expectations for faculty members who want to keep it. Our post-tenure review process is thorough and rigorous. While some on our faculty question its necessity, the vast majority understand its value.

But the public is understandably skeptical of tenure. Most jobs do not guarantee employment. So it is important for higher education not only to do a better job of explaining the necessity of tenure to the public, but also to be transparent in how the system works.

That was one of the key conclusions of CU's tenure reform effort, which came about after the university had some very public problems. It was led by retired Air Force Gen. Howell Estes and completed in 2006. CU is in the final stages of implementing the 40 recommendations from the nearly year-long effort, which involved groups both internal and external to the university. It was perhaps the most thorough tenure review ever by an American university and has led to a better, more rigorous system.

Tenure is essential to an effective college or university. It allows faculty to conduct research, free from public pressure, in areas some deem controversial, such as stem cells. It also allows for a diversity of viewpoints, fostering a marketplace of ideas. It lets universities develop a cadre of senior teachers and scholars who enrich the life of the mind and pursue important research.

Yet it is also essential that tenure processes be rigorous, open and accountable. Tenure is not a license for irresponsibility or a ticket to coast. The system must have checks and balances.

So how does the system work? It is like a funnel, with lots of candidates at the top narrowing to few tenured faculty coming out the bottom.

An example from the University of Colorado at Boulder is illustrative. In the 2001-'02 academic year, there were 54 openings for positions eligible for tenure. More than 5,000 people applied for those positions. About 100 people apply for each open position in larger departments. The field is winnowed to four or five who interview.

Those hired often embark on the tenure track, a seven-year process where their teaching, research and university service are continually evaluated.

Of the 54 tenure-track faculty who began their employment at CU-Boulder in 2001, fewer than half (23) have been recommended for tenure. Of the remaining 31, three were denied tenure and seven were delayed for various reasons. Twenty-one left the university (three to a comparable institution).

The criteria for getting tenure is comprehensive, and includes evaluation of a candidate's teaching portfolio, publications, examples of mentoring, creation of special learning experiences, peer review letters and course evaluation questionnaires. Additionally, leading scholars in the candidate's field (from other universities) evaluate their research.

Once faculty members achieve tenure, they cannot rest on their laurels. They undergo a thorough post-tenure review process aimed at ensuring they remain effective. Post-tenure review happens every five years, but CU also has an annual merit evaluation to identify those whose performance is falling below professional standards. If so, they are immediately directed to a performance improvement agreement to make corrections. Those whose performance still doesn't measure up face a range of sanctions, from pay cuts to termination.

When a university grants tenure to a faculty member, it makes a multiyear investment. In most every case, there is a commensurate return in teaching excellence, research productivity and service that benefits students and the state. To ensure that investment in tenure remains sound, our processes will remain rigorous and our expectations high.

Bruce D. Benson is president of the University of Colorado.

Comments

  • December 15, 2008

    6:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    stevea writes:

    "The criteria ... is comprehensive".

    You can solve these vexing singular/plural issues simply by using the "be" form of the verb "to be", e.g. "The criteria be comprehensive". Doesn't that sound much more smarter.

    Remember, the media be watching what they hear you say.

  • December 15, 2008

    7:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Does Ward "I hate America" Churchill ring a bell? Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach. Those who are morally corrupt defend tenure.

    "This perception is not based in reality." Wrong. perception is reality in politics and this is what tenure is. No job should be guaranteed. Tenure, like labor unions, has out-lived its usefulness and has been corrupted by scoundrels. Get rid of it.

    This is a self-serving piece of tripe.

  • December 15, 2008

    9:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    That_Guy writes:

    While Mike_in_Hartsel does have a point, it is seriously overblown. Yeah Churchill was an example of what is wrong with tenure, but for every one of him I'd bet money that we'll find a hundred that are good. In every profession there are outstanding examples and slime. Consider this, every year hundreds (probably more) of accountants cheat and swindle their clients or employers. Does that mean we should abolish the CPA testing? Clearly it must be flawed. Hundreds of medical doctors seriously harm their patients every year, but thousands do not. Should we abolish board certification? It must be worthless if all those "bad" doctors get through.